aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

  • faceless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    thats not the reason people do circumcision. most people do it for religious purposes. to argue that it is a human rights violation is to argue that people are not allowed to have a religion. religions such as Judaism circumcise because to show that they made a covenant with god. it is a huge important part of Judaism. you cant take away peoples religious beliefs if they arent being enforced on people who arent in that belief.

    • Blum0108@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Forced genital mutilation on people that are unable to consent.

      How do you feel about female genital mutilation?

      • faceless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        while I think its harmful (it can cause severe inflammation leading to hospital visits) im not going to force others to conform to that belief

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where do you draw the line? Human sacrifices used to be a common religious practice, but surely you wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t force others to conform to the belief that murder is wrong.

          Personally I think religious practices that cause actual harm to others deserve no protection. Beliefs are just beliefs, religious or otherwise. If I believe I should be allowed to mutilate others without consequence, no one would defend my right to “practice” my belief; but if it’s part of a longstanding religious tradition it just gets a pass?

          Traditions are only as good as the underlying reasons for them. If those have been forgotten or are otherwise no longer relevant, the tradition needs new justification just as any other new idea does.

    • Rachelhazideas
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      Religion doesn’t supercede bodily autonomy. Period.

      Your rights to practice religion ends when it starts infringing on the rights of another person. You are not entitled to harming others for your own religious needs.

      You can do whatever you want with your own body in the name of religion. Just do not mutilate your own child.

      Imagine if a different religion warrants cutting off the nipples of newborns, or ripping off a nail, or skinning a toe. That is how barbaric you sound when you say ‘it’s fine to cut off the skin of my child’s penis’.

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are you aware the majority of Americans are not jewish but were subjected to genital mutilation after birth? It is not a religious thing here primarily, it’s a practice that was started by a prude named Kellog to explicitly make it more difficult to masturbate and because it is “cleaner,” which is a dubious claim at best.

      • faceless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah outside religion I don’t know why Kellogg did that. im talking about the type used for religious purposes.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          He did it to sexually stunt America in the name of Christianity and his warped morality. I would say that if a religion mandates you do something barbaric, then that practice should still be outlawed. I believe in a secular state where the rules of society and the greater good take precedence over myopic religious practices.

          Similarly how the right to free speech does to let you go around making threats etc., the freedom of religion must not allow for crimes – which I consider infant genital mutilation to be.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be clear, nobody is saying that circumcision is always a human rights violation. Only when it is done to a child who cannot consent. If an adult were to choose to get circumcised then that would be his right.

      you cant take away peoples religious beliefs if they arent being enforced on people who arent in that belief.

      This is exactly the problem. Children are typically circumcised shortly after birth. They are not part of any belief and cannot even speak, let alone consent to something as serious and irreversible as a circumcision. It is being forced on them.

      People are allowed to have and practice their religion. They should not be allowed to force their beliefs on others, even their own kids.

      If course this all ignores the fact that many circumcisions (in the US at least) are not performed for explicitly religious reasons.

    • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they can take away my foreskin without my consent? No, fuck that and fuck the religions that normalize the mutilation of children’s genitals. Wild that I even have to say that to you.

        • TIMMAY@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I dont have the time or the crayons to explain to you how you have entirely missed the point

        • zea@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          By that logic they can do literally anything to a baby, including murder, abuse, and I don’t really want to go on.

          • First Majestic Comet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s also uncomfortably similar to the excuse used by alt-right conservatives when it comes to their abuse of trans kids, just with kids instead of babies in their case.

        • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wtf are u smoking that u think a baby can consent to anything?

          Exactly. Which is why you wait for that baby to become an adult before asking them if they want a slice of their dick cut off.

    • smooth_jazz_warlady@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, but why should it be acceptable to induct a child into a religion from the moment of birth, spend their formative years being taught a belief system that they have no ability to think critically about, while isolating them from alternative systems of belief? Why shouldn’t it be the norm to raise your children on the idea of all religious beliefs or lack thereof being equally valid and plausible, that we can’t prove one or another definitively true so it becomes a matter of “what do you chose to have blind faith in?”, and let them decide as an adult?